    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2004, Book III)]
    [October 18, 2004]
    [Pages 2567-2574]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks in Marlton, New Jersey
    October 18, 2004

        The President. Thank you all. Thanks for coming. Thanks for the warm
    welcome. It is great to be back in the State of New Jersey. Oh, I know
    it might surprise some to see a Republican Presidential candidate in New
    Jersey in late October. The reason why I'm here, with your help, we'll
    carry the State of New Jersey in November.
        We are now 15 days away from a critical election. Many important
    domestic issues are at stake. I have a positive, hopeful agenda for job
    creation, broader health coverage, and better public education. Yet all
    the progress we hope to make depends on the security of our Nation.
    America is in the middle of a global war on terror, a struggle unlike
    any we have ever known before. We face an enemy that is determined to
    kill the innocent and make our country into a battlefield. In the war on
    terror, there is no place for confusion and no substitute for victory.
    For the sake of our future and our freedom, we will fight this war with
    every asset of our national power, and we will prevail.
        Laura sends her best. So I asked her to marry
    me; she said, ``Fine, just so long as I never have to give a political
    speech.'' [Laughter] I said, ``Okay, you got a deal.'' Fortunately, she
    didn't hold me to that deal. The American people--a lot of Americans
    have seen her give a speech, and when they do, they see a compassionate,
    strong, warm woman.
        I'm proud to have been standing on the stage with Bernie
    Kerik. He knows something about security.
    He's lived security all his life, and I want to thank him for his
    dedication and his service to the people of this country.
        I want to thank Congressman Jim Saxton for
    being here today. And thank you for bringing your daughter,
    Jennifer. I want to thank Congressman Scott
    Garrett for joining us today. Congressman,
    thank you. Congressman Frank LoBiondo--
    thanks for coming, Frank and Tina. I want to thank Congressman Chris
    Smith and Marie
    for joining us. The chairman of the Republican Party was born and raised
    in this county. He's doing a fabulous job. Welcome my friend Ed
    Gillespie. Thanks for coming, Ed.
        I want to thank all the State senators and statehouse members who
    are here. I want to thank the grassroots activists. I want to thank you
    for what you're going to do during the next 15 days. Put up the signs.
    Call the phones. Get the people out to vote. We're going to win the
    State of New Jersey and win a great victory in November.
        Audience members. Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!
        The President. During the decade of the 1990s, our times often
    seemed peaceful on the surface. Yet, beneath that surface were currents
    of danger. Terrorists were training and planning in distant camps. In
    1993, terrorists made their first attack on the World Trade Center. In
    1998, terrorists bombed American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. And
    then came the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, which cost the lives of
    17 American sailors. In this period, America's response to terrorism was
    generally piecemeal and symbolic. The terrorists concluded this was a
    sign of weakness, and their plans became more ambitious,* and their
    attacks became more deadly.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        *White House correction.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Most Americans still felt that terrorism was something distant and
    something that would not strike on a large scale in America. That is the
    time that my opponent wants to go back to----
        Audience members. Boo-o-o!
        The President. ----a time when danger was real and growing, but we
    didn't know

    [[Page 2568]]

    it, a time when some thought terrorism was only a ``nuisance.''
        Audience members. Boo-o-o!
        The President. But that very attitude is what blinded America to the
    war being waged against us. And by not seeing the war, our Government
    had no comprehensive strategy to fight it. September the 11th, 2001,
    changed all that. We realized that the apparent security of the 1990s
    was an illusion.
        The people of New Jersey were among the first to understand how the
    world changed. On September the 11th, from places like Hoboken and
    Jersey City, you could look across the Hudson River and see the Twin
    Towers burning. We will never forget that day, and we will never forget
    our duty to defend America.
        Out of the horror of that day, we also saw good emerge. America has
    seen a new generation of heroes, police, firefighters, members of the
    military. Americans have felt a new sense of community in neighborhoods
    and across our country. We've been reminded that all of us are a part of
    a great American story that is larger than our individual lives, and we
    have been reminded of our solemn responsibility to defend freedom.
        September the 11th also changed the way we should look at national
    security, but not everyone realizes it. The choice we face in this
    election, the first Presidential election since September the 11th, is
    how our Nation will defeat this threat. Will we stay on the offensive
    against those who want to attack us----
        Audience members. Yes!
        The President. ----or will we take action only after we are
    attacked?
        Audience members. No-o-o!
        The President. Will we make decisions in the light of September the
    11th or continue to live in the mirage of safety that was actually a
    time of gathering threats? And in this time of choosing, I want all
    Americans to know you can count on me to fight our enemies and defend
    our freedom.
        Winning the war on terror requires more than tough-sounding words
    repeated in the election season. America needs clear moral purpose and
    leaders who will not waver, especially in the tough times. And winning
    the war on terror requires a strategy for victory. Unlike my
    opponent, I understand the struggle America
    faces, and I have a strategy to win.
        Our first duty in the war on terror is to protect the homeland. This
    morning at the White House, I signed a strong law that will make our
    Nation more secure. With the 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
    we are providing essential funding for Coast Guard patrols and port
    security, for the Federal air marshal program, and for technology that
    will defend aircraft against missiles. We're adding new resources to
    patrol our borders and to verify the identity of foreign visitors to
    America. We need to know who's coming in and out of our country.
        The new law includes vital money for first-responders and for better
    security of chemical facilities and nuclear plants and water treatment
    plants and bridges and subways and tunnels. All these measures show the
    unwavering commitment of our Government. We will do everything in our
    power to protect the American people.
        The law I signed today is part of a broad effort to defend America
    against new dangers. After September the 11th, we created the Department
    of Homeland Security to make sure our Government agencies are working
    together. We're transforming the FBI into an agency whose primary focus
    is stopping terrorism. Through Project BioShield, we are developing new
    vaccines and treatments against biological attacks. We've trained more
    than a half million first-responders across America.
        To protect America, we passed the PATRIOT Act, giving law
    enforcement many of the same tools to fight terrorists that they already
    had to fight drug cartels and

    [[Page 2569]]

    organized crime. Since September the 11th, law enforcement professionals
    have stopped terrorist activities in Columbus, Ohio; San Diego,
    California; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; Buffalo, New York;
    and other places, including New Jersey, where we apprehended an arms
    dealer who was allegedly trying to sell shoulder-fired missiles to
    terrorists.
        My opponent voted for the PATRIOT Act, but
    now he wants to weaken it. There are plenty of safeguards in this law,
    making sure that civil liberties are protected and searches are
    authorized by court order. By seeking to dilute the PATRIOT Act, my
    opponent is taking the eye off the ball. The danger to America is not
    the PATRIOT Act or the good people who use it; the danger to America is
    the terrorists. And we will not let up in this fight.
        To protect America, our country needs the best possible
    intelligence. Chairman Tom Kean and other
    members of the September the 11th Commission made thoughtful and
    valuable recommendations on intelligence reform. We are already
    implementing the vast majority of those recommendations that can be
    enacted without a vote of Congress. We're expanding and strengthening
    the capabilities of the CIA. We've established the Terrorist Threat
    Integration Center so we can bring together all the available
    intelligence on terrorist threats to one place.
        But other changes require new laws. Congress needs to create the
    position of the National Intelligence Director and take other measures
    to make our intelligence community more effective. These reforms are
    necessary to stay ahead of the threats. I urge Congress to act quickly
    so I can sign them into law.
        My opponent has taken a different approach, and it shows in his
    record. Just one year after the first attack on the World Trade Center
    in 1993, Senator Kerry proposed a $6 billion
    cut in the Nation's intelligence budget.
        Audience members. Boo-o-o!
        The President. But the majority of his colleagues ignored his
    irresponsible proposal. In 1995, he tried to
    cut intelligence funding again, and this time he could not get a single
    Member of the United States Senate to support his bill. And that's an
    important difference between us. Senator Kerry has a record of trying to
    weaken American intelligence. I am working every day to strengthen
    American intelligence.
        In a free and open society, it is impossible to protect against
    every threat. So second, we must pursue a comprehensive strategy against
    terror. The best way to prevent attacks is to stay on the offense
    against the enemy overseas. We are waging a global campaign from the
    mountains of central Asia to the deserts of the Middle East and from the
    Horn of Africa to the Philippines.
        These efforts are paying off. Since September the 11th, 2001, more
    than three-quarters of Al Qaida's key members and associates have been
    brought to justice. The rest of them know we're coming after them.
        After September the 11th, we set a new direction for American policy
    and enforced a doctrine that is clear to all: ``If you support or harbor
    terrorists, you're equally guilty of terrorist murder.'' We destroyed
    the terror camps that trained thousands of killers in Afghanistan. We
    removed the Taliban from power. We have persuaded Governments in
    Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to recognize the enemy and join the fight. We
    ended the regime of Saddam Hussein, which
    sponsored terror. Iraq's new Government under Prime Minister
    Allawi is hunting down terrorists in Iraq. We
    sent a message to Libya, which has now given up weapons of mass
    destruction programs and handed nuclear materials and equipment over to
    the United States. We have acted, through diplomacy and force, to shrink
    the area where the terrorists can operate freely, and that strategy has
    the terrorists on the run.

    [[Page 2570]]

        My opponent has a fundamental
    misunderstanding on the war on terror. A reporter recently asked Senator
    Kerry how September the 11th changed him. He replied, ``It didn't change
    me much at all.''
        Audience members. Boo-o-o!
        The President. His unchanged worldview is obvious from the policies
    he still advocates. He has said this war is
    primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation. He has
    declared, we should not respond to threats until they are, quote,
    ``imminent.'' He has complained that my administration, quote, ``relies
    unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist
    organizations.'' Let me repeat that. He says that preemptive action is
    ``unwise,'' not only against regimes but even against terrorist
    organizations.
        Audience members. Boo-o-o!
        The President. Senator Kerry's approach
    would permit a response only after America is hit.
        Audience members. Boo-o-o!
        The President. This kind of September the 10th attitude is no way to
    protect our country. The war on terror is a real war with deadly
    enemies, not simply a police operation. In an era of weapons of mass
    destruction, waiting for threats to arrive at our doorsteps is to invite
    disaster. Tyrants and terrorists will not give us polite notice before
    they attack our country. As long as I'm the Commander in Chief, I will
    confront dangers abroad so we do not have to face them here at home.
        The case of one terrorist shows what is at stake. The terrorist
    leader we face in Iraq today, the one responsible for beheading American
    hostages, the one responsible for many of the car bombings and attacks
    against Iraqis, is a man named Zarqawi.
    Before September the 11th, Zarqawi ran a camp in Afghanistan that
    trained terrorists in the use of explosives and poisons--until coalition
    forces destroyed that camp. He fled to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, where he received medical care and set up
    operations with some two dozen terrorist associates. He operated in
    Baghdad and worked with associates in northern Iraq who ran camps to
    train terrorists and conducted chemical and biological experiments--
    until coalition forces arrived and ended those operations. With nowhere
    to operate openly, Zarqawi has gone underground and is making a stand in
    Iraq.
        Here, the difference between my opponent
    and me is very clear. Senator Kerry believes that fighting
    Zarqawi and other terrorists in Iraq is
    a ``diversion'' from the war on terror. I believe that fighting and
    defeating these killers in Iraq is a central commitment in the war on
    terror.
        If Zarqawi and his associates were
    not busy fighting American forces in Iraq, does Senator Kerry think they would be leading productive and peaceful
    lives? [Laughter] Clearly, these killers would be plotting and acting to
    murder innocent civilians in free nations, including our own. By facing
    these terrorists far away, our military is making the United States of
    America more secure.
        Third, to win the war on terror, America must work with allies and
    lead the world with clarity. And that is exactly what we are doing. The
    flags of 64 nations fly at U.S. Central Command Headquarters in Tampa,
    Florida, representing coalition countries that are working openly with
    us in the war on terror. Dozens more are helping quietly in important
    ways. Today, all 26 NATO nations have personnel either in Iraq,
    Afghanistan, or both. America's allies are standing with us in the war
    on terror, and we are grateful.
        My opponent promises that he would do better with our allies, yet
    he's decided that the way to build alliances is to insult our friends.
    As a candidate for President, Senator Kerry
    has managed to offend or alienate almost every one of America's fighting
    allies in the war on terror. He has called the countries serving
    alongside us in Iraq, quote, ``a trumped-up coalition of the bribed, the
    coerced, the bought, and the extorted.''
        Audience members. Boo-o-o!

    [[Page 2571]]

        The President. He has dismissed the
    sacrifice of 14 nations that have lost forces in Iraq, calling those
    nations ``window dressing.'' In our debate a few weeks ago, he declared,
    ``When we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia,
    and the United States.'' He left out Poland, one of the first countries
    to see combat on the first days of hostilities in Iraq. He never shows
    respect for some of the 30 nations that are serving courageously in Iraq
    today.
        Senator Kerry even has disregarded the
    contributions of Iraqis who are fighting for their freedom. When he
    speaks of coalition casualties in Iraq, he doesn't count the hundreds of
    Iraqis who have given their lives fighting the terrorists and the
    insurgents. When Iraq's Prime Minister came to
    Washington to address Congress last month, Senator Kerry did not show
    up. Instead, he called a press conference and questioned the Prime
    Minister's credibility. The Prime Minister of Iraq is a brave man who
    survived the assassins of Saddam. The Prime
    Minister of Iraq deserves the respect of the world, not the scorn of a
    politician.
        As part of his foreign policy, Senator Kerry has talked about applying a ``global test.''
        Audience members. Boo-o-o!
        The President. As far as I can tell, it comes down to this: Before
    we act to defend ourselves, he thinks we need
    permission from foreign capitals.
        Audience members. Boo-o-o!
        The President. Yet, even the gulf war coalition in 1991 did not pass
    Senator Kerry's ``global test.'' Even with the
    United Nations approval, he voted against removing Saddam
    Hussein from Kuwait.
        Audience members. Boo-o-o!
        The President. If that vast, U.N.-supported operation did not pass
    his test, nothing ever could. Senator Kerry's
    ``global test'' is nothing more than an excuse to constrain the actions
    of our own country in a dangerous world.
        I believe in strong alliances. I believe in respecting other
    countries and working with them and seeking their advice. But I will
    never submit our national security decisions to a veto of a foreign
    government.
        Audience members. U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
        The President. Fourth, we will win the war on terror and make
    America safer by advancing the cause of freedom and democracy. Free
    societies are hopeful societies which do not nurture bitterness or the
    ideologies of terror and murder. Free governments in the broader Middle
    East will fight the terrorists instead of harboring them. And this is
    why a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan are vital to peace in that region
    and vital to the security interests of our country.
        After decades of tyranny in the broader Middle East, progress toward
    freedom will not come easily. Yet, that progress is coming faster than
    many would have said possible. Across a troubled region, we are seeing a
    movement toward elections, greater rights for women, and open discussion
    of peaceful reform. The election in Afghanistan less than 2 weeks ago
    was a landmark event in the history of liberty. That election was a
    tremendous defeat for the terrorists.
        My opponent has complained that we are
    trying to, quote, ``impose'' democracy on people in that region. Is that
    what he sees in Afghanistan, unwilling people having democracy forced
    upon them? We removed the Taliban by force, but democracy is rising in
    that country because the Afghan people, like everywhere, want to live in
    freedom.
        No one forced them to register by the millions or stand in long
    lines at polling places. On the day of that historic election, an Afghan
    widow brought all four of her daughters to vote alongside her. She said
    this, she said, ``When you see women here lined up to vote, this is
    something profound. I never dreamed this day would come.'' But that
    woman's dream

    [[Page 2572]]

    finally arrived, as it will one day across the greater Middle East.
    [Applause] Thank you.
        The dream of freedom is moving forward in Iraq. The terrorists know
    it, and they hate it, and they fight it. And we can expect more violence
    as Iraq moves toward free elections. Yet, every day in Iraq, our
    coalition is defeating the enemy's strategic objectives. The enemy seeks
    to disrupt the march toward democracy. But an Iraqi independent
    electoral commission is up and running, political parties are planning
    campaigns, voter registration will begin next month, and free and fair
    Iraqi elections will be held on schedule this coming January.
        The enemy seeks to establish sanctuaries in Iraq from which to
    commit acts of terror. But Iraqi and coalition forces are on the
    offensive in Fallujah and North Babil and have restored Government
    control in Samarra, Tall `Afar, and Najaf.
        The enemy wants to make Iraqis afraid to join security forces. But
    every week, more and more Iraqis answer the call to arms. More than
    100,000 soldiers, police, and border guards are already trained,
    equipped, and bravely serving their country. And well over 200,000 will
    be in place by the end of 2005.
        The enemy seeks to break the will of the Iraqi people. But as Prime
    Minister Allawi told the Congress, Iraqis are
    hopeful, optimistic, and determined to prevail in their struggle for
    liberty.
        After the enemy has failed in so many goals, what can these killers
    do now? They can fill up our TV screens with horrible images of suicide
    bombings and beheadings. These scenes are chaotic and horrific, but
    they're not a complete picture of what's happening in Iraq. A recent
    poll found that more than 75 percent of Iraqis want to vote, and they
    have confidence in the electoral progress. And more than 75 percent are
    hopeful about the future of their country. The violent acts of a few
    will not divert Iraqis and our coalition from the mission we have
    accepted. Iraq will be free. Iraqis will be secure. And the terrorists
    will fail.
        My opponent has a different outlook. While
    America does the hard work of fighting terror and spreading freedom, he
    has chosen the easy path of protest and defeatism. He refuses to
    acknowledge progress or praise the growing democratic spirit in Iraq. He
    has not made democracy a priority of his foreign policy. But what is his
    strategy, his vision, his answer? Is he content to watch and wait as
    anger and resentment grow for more decades in the Middle East, feeding
    more terrorism until radicals without conscience gain the weapons to
    kill without limit?
        Giving up the fight might seem easier in the short run, but we
    learned on September the 11th that if violence and fanaticism are not
    opposed at their source, they will find us where we live. America is
    safer today because Afghanistan and Iraq are fighting terrorists instead
    of harboring them. And I believe future generations of Americans will be
    spared violence and fear as democracy and hope and governments that
    oppose terror multiply across the Middle East.
        Victory in the war on terror requires victory in Iraq. If a terror
    regime were allowed to reemerge in Iraq, the terrorists would find a
    home, a source of funding, and vital support. They would correctly
    conclude that free nations do not have the will to defend themselves.
    When Iraq becomes a free society at the heart of the Middle East, an
    ally in the war on terror, and a model for hopeful reform in a region
    that needs hopeful reform, the terrorists will suffer a crushing defeat
    and every free nation will be more secure.
        Unfortunately, Senator Kerry does not
    share our commitment to victory in Iraq. For 3 years, depending on the
    headlines, the poll numbers, and political calculation, he has taken
    almost every conceivable position on Iraq.
        Audience members. Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop!

    [[Page 2573]]

        The President. First, he said Saddam
    Hussein was a threat, and he voted for the
    war. Then he voted against funds for bullets and body armor for the
    troops he had voted to send into battle.
        Audience members. Boo-o-o!
        The President. He declared himself an
    antiwar candidate. Months later, he said that knowing everything we know
    now, he would have still voted for the war. Then he said the war was a
    ``mistake,'' an ``error,'' or ``diversion.'' Having gone back and forth
    so many times, the Senator from Massachusetts has now flip-flopped his
    way to a dangerous position. My opponent finally has settled on a
    strategy, a strategy of retreat.
        Audience members. Boo-o-o!
        The President. He has talked about
    artificial timetables to pull our troops out of Iraq. He has sent the
    signal that America's overriding goal in Iraq would be to leave, even if
    the job is not done.
        Audience members. Boo-o-o!
        The President. And that approach would lead to a major defeat in the
    war on terror. So long as I'm the Commander in Chief, America will never
    retreat in the face of the terrorists. [Applause] Thank you.
        We will keep our word to the Iraqi people. We'll make sure Iraqi
    forces can defend their country, and then American troops will return
    home with the honor they have earned.
        On each of the four commitments needed to prevail in the war on
    terror, there is a clear choice before the American people. My
    opponent wants to weaken the PATRIOT Act and
    has a history of trying to undermine our intelligence services. I will
    take every necessary measure to protect the homeland. The Senator wants
    to wage the war on terror on the defensive. I will take the fight to the
    enemy. The Senator insults our friends in the world and wants to please
    a few critics. I'm working with our friends for the sake of freedom and
    security. The Senator is skeptical and pessimistic about democracy in
    Iraq and critical of our efforts in the broader Middle East. I know that
    the advance of freedom is the path to security and peace.
        In all these areas, my opponent's views would make America less
    secure and the world more dangerous. And none of these positions should
    come as a surprise. Over a 20-year career in the United States Senate,
    Senator Kerry has been consistently wrong on
    the major national security issues facing our country. The Senator who
    voted against the $87 billion for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is
    the same Senator who has voted against vital weapons systems during his
    entire career. He tried to cancel the Patriot missile, which shot down
    Scud missiles in Operation Desert Storm. He opposed the B-1 bomber,
    which was critical to victory in the Afghan campaign. He opposed the B-2
    stealth bomber, which delivered devastating air strikes on Taliban
    positions. He opposed the modernized F-14D, which we used against
    terrorists in Tora Bora. He opposed the Apache helicopter, which
    destroyed enemy tanks and anti-aircraft missile launchers in Iraq.
        The Senator who is skeptical of democracy
    in Iraq also spoke with sympathy for a communist dictator in Nicaragua in the 1980s and criticized the democracy
    movement as ``terrorism.'' His misguided policies would have impeded the
    spread of freedom in Central America. The Senator who claims the world
    is more dangerous since America started fighting the war on terror is
    the same Senator who said that Ronald Reagan's policies of peace through
    strength actually made America less safe----
        Audience members. Boo-o-o!
        The President. ----the same Senator who
    said the Reagan Presidency was 8 years of ``moral darkness.''
        Audience members. Boo-o-o!
        The President. In this campaign, Senator Kerry can run from his record, but he cannot hide. [Applause]
    Thank you.
        The Senator's long record shows a clear
    pattern on national security. He has consistently opposed a stronger
    military. He has consistently looked for excuses to constrain

    [[Page 2574]]

    American power. He has consistently shown poor judgment on the great
    issues of war and peace. When one Senator among a hundred holds a policy
    of weakness, it doesn't make a lot of difference. But the Presidency is
    an office of great responsibility and consequence.
        I have a record in office as well, and all Americans have seen that
    record. September the 14th,* 2001, I stood in the ruins of the Twin
    Towers. It's a day I will never forget. Bernie might remember the workers in hardhats that were yelling
    at me and yelling at us, ``Whatever it takes.'' A man grabbed me by the
    arm, just coming out of the rubble, and he said, ``Do not let me down.''
    I have a responsibility that goes on. I wake up every morning thinking
    about how to make our country more secure. I acted again and again to
    protect the American people. I will never relent in defending our
    country, whatever it takes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        *White House correction.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In a new term----
        Audience members. Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!
        The President. In a new term as your President, we will finish the
    work we have started. We will stand up for terror--we will stand up for
    freedom. And on November the 2d, my fellow Americans, I ask that you
    stand with me.
        God bless. Thank you all.

    Note: The President spoke at 1:21 p.m. at the Evesham Recreation Center.
    In his remarks, he referred to Bernard B. Kerik, former commissioner,
    New York City Police Department; Tina LoBiondo, wife of Representative
    Frank A. LoBiondo; Marie Smith, wife of Representative Christopher H.
    Smith; Edward W. Gillespie, chairman, Republican National Committee;
    Thomas H. Kean, Chairman, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon
    the United States (9/11 Commission); former President Saddam Hussein of
    Iraq; Prime Minister Ayad Allawi of the Iraqi Interim Government; senior
    Al Qaida associate Abu Musab Al Zarqawi; and former President Daniel
    Ortega of Nicaragua. The Office of the Press Secretary also released a
    Spanish language transcript of these remarks.